Recent demonstrations and violence in Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province
that left four people dead and nine others wounded raise the question:
Is Saudi Arabia the next country that will encounter the wave of popular
unrest sweeping the Arab world?

Already the Arab uprisings' effects have been felt in Saudi Arabia.
In February and March, soon after Mubarak's overthrow in Egypt, Saudi
Facebook activists began calling for a revolution and declared a "Day of
Rage" for March 11, emulating the youth activists in Egypt and Tunisia.
However, the "Day of Rage" fizzled out, and demonstrations were held
only in the Eastern Province, home to Saudi's restive Shia minority.

Since then, things have been relatively quiet, at least until
recently. One reason is that unlike Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, and Libya,
which are technically republics, Saudi Arabia is a monarchy run by the
Al Saud family. So far, the Arab monarchies have been better suited to
absorb discontent. In many of the region's monarchies, while the king
maintains ultimate control, power is more diffuse and thus the top
leaders are able to deflect some criticism. Monarchies have so far
proven to have greater legitimacy in the eyes of their countrymen than
have the faux-republics. That doesn't mean that they are immune to
unrest, as we have seen in Jordan and Bahrain, the latter though is
anomalous in that a Sunni minority rules over a Shiite majority. But
they are better positioned to manage it.

Saudi Arabia's unique status as the "custodian of the two holy
places," Mecca and Medina, also confers legitimacy on the kingdom's
rulers. As the birthplace of Islam, and with an official religious
establishment recognized well beyond the country's borders, the Arabian
kingdom ultimately exercises authority through religion and through the
ruling family's alliance with the Wahabi clerical establishment.

But the Saudis are not taking any chances, and throughout the
region's uprisings, the royal family has employed a combination of
sticks and carrots to help ensure domestic tranquility. Saudi troops
have been deployed in force to deter any possible unrest. Thus far, any
domestic turbulence has been contained to the Shia areas of Saudi
Arabia, far from the majority Sunni population areas.

At the same time, Saudi largesse has been more widely distributed
through massive aid packages and wage increases. In February King
Abdullah introduced a domestic aid program worth $37 billion. The King
rolled out an even more comprehensive $97 billion aid package on March
18. He provided $70 billion alone for five hundred thousand units of
low-income housing and sent $200 million as a reward to the religious
establishment. Additionally, the king upped unemployment benefits, paid a
bonus worth two months' salary to public servants, and increased the
education allowance for all students.

Fortunately for the kingdom, the nine million barrels of oil Saudi
produces each day provide tremendous revenue for it to dole out these
kinds of subsidies. Moreover, this income, combined with Saudi's huge
cash reserves, estimated at $400 billion, allows the ruling family to
maintain comprehensive security and intelligence apparatuses, the
ability to wield huge influence over both domestic and international
media, and the general ability to quell unrest by throwing money at
problems.

One key challenge for the country is the high unemployment among the
young. Youth unemployment in Saudi Arabia is estimated at 25 percent or
higher. Providing a promising future for these educated younger Saudis
is a major challenge to the kingdom, despite its overall wealth.

The other key variable that could trigger real instability centers on
succession to the relatively moderate King Abdullah who is eighty-seven
years-old and ailing. Abdullah has introduced some progressive policies
by holding municipal elections in September and calling for women to be
allowed to vote in the next municipal elections scheduled for 2015. But
the recently appointed Crown Prince, Nayef, is viewed as a social
conservative unlikely to adopt progressive policies for the kingdom.
Despite reassuring Vice President Biden that his policy aim would be one
of continuity in terms of reform and closeness with the United States,
it is difficult to predict how he'll guide the kingdom should he succeed
Abdullah. At seventy-eight years-old, Nayef's own reign is not likely
to last long, if it occurs at all. And his perceived closeness to the
conservative religious establishment could trigger discontent among
liberals.

For now, the kingdom seems stable. Through its rapid intervention in
Bahrain, and deployment of troops at home, Saudi leadership has signaled
that popular dissent will be met with swift resistance. And the spread
of largesse and minimal reforms have served as a palliative to a largely
passive population.

Nonetheless, the kingdom is likely to face some significant
succession challenges in the not too distant future. How the Al Saud
family manages its upcoming successions will be pivotal for Saudi
Arabia's stability. Tumult in the succession process could provide an
opening for popular unrest to billow out--especially if uprisings
continue to ignite the broader region in the months and years to come.

This article originally appeared at CFR.org, an Atlantic partner site.

Most Popular

Writing used to be a solitary profession. How did it become so interminably social?

Whether we’re behind the podium or awaiting our turn, numbing our bottoms on the chill of metal foldout chairs or trying to work some life into our terror-stricken tongues, we introverts feel the pain of the public performance. This is because there are requirements to being a writer. Other than being a writer, I mean. Firstly, there’s the need to become part of the writing “community”, which compels every writer who craves self respect and success to attend community events, help to organize them, buzz over them, and—despite blitzed nerves and staggering bowels—present and perform at them. We get through it. We bully ourselves into it. We dose ourselves with beta blockers. We drink. We become our own worst enemies for a night of validation and participation.

Even when a dentist kills an adored lion, and everyone is furious, there’s loftier righteousness to be had.

Now is the point in the story of Cecil the lion—amid non-stop news coverage and passionate social-media advocacy—when people get tired of hearing about Cecil the lion. Even if they hesitate to say it.

But Cecil fatigue is only going to get worse. On Friday morning, Zimbabwe’s environment minister, Oppah Muchinguri, called for the extradition of the man who killed him, the Minnesota dentist Walter Palmer. Muchinguri would like Palmer to be “held accountable for his illegal action”—paying a reported $50,000 to kill Cecil with an arrow after luring him away from protected land. And she’s far from alone in demanding accountability. This week, the Internet has served as a bastion of judgment and vigilante justice—just like usual, except that this was a perfect storm directed at a single person. It might be called an outrage singularity.

Forget credit hours—in a quest to cut costs, universities are simply asking students to prove their mastery of a subject.

MANCHESTER, Mich.—Had Daniella Kippnick followed in the footsteps of the hundreds of millions of students who have earned university degrees in the past millennium, she might be slumping in a lecture hall somewhere while a professor droned. But Kippnick has no course lectures. She has no courses to attend at all. No classroom, no college quad, no grades. Her university has no deadlines or tenure-track professors.

Instead, Kippnick makes her way through different subject matters on the way to a bachelor’s in accounting. When she feels she’s mastered a certain subject, she takes a test at home, where a proctor watches her from afar by monitoring her computer and watching her over a video feed. If she proves she’s competent—by getting the equivalent of a B—she passes and moves on to the next subject.

The Wall Street Journal’s eyebrow-raising story of how the presidential candidate and her husband accepted cash from UBS without any regard for the appearance of impropriety that it created.

The Swiss bank UBS is one of the biggest, most powerful financial institutions in the world. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton intervened to help it out with the IRS. And after that, the Swiss bank paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million for speaking gigs. TheWall Street Journal reported all that and more Thursday in an article that highlights huge conflicts of interest that the Clintons have created in the recent past.

The piece begins by detailing how Clinton helped the global bank.

“A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter. The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts,” the newspaper reports. “If the case proceeded, Switzerland’s largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court. Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement—an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS.”

There’s no way this man could be president, right? Just look at him: rumpled and scowling, bald pate topped by an entropic nimbus of white hair. Just listen to him: ranting, in his gravelly Brooklyn accent, about socialism. Socialism!

And yet here we are: In the biggest surprise of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, this thoroughly implausible man, Bernie Sanders, is a sensation.

He is drawing enormous crowds—11,000 in Phoenix, 8,000 in Dallas, 2,500 in Council Bluffs, Iowa—the largest turnout of any candidate from any party in the first-to-vote primary state. He has raised $15 million in mostly small donations, to Hillary Clinton’s $45 million—and unlike her, he did it without holding a single fundraiser. Shocking the political establishment, it is Sanders—not Martin O’Malley, the fresh-faced former two-term governor of Maryland; not Joe Biden, the sitting vice president—to whom discontented Democratic voters looking for an alternative to Clinton have turned.

During the multi-country press tour for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, not even Jon Stewart has dared ask Tom Cruise about Scientology.

During the media blitz for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation over the past two weeks, Tom Cruise has seemingly been everywhere. In London, he participated in a live interview at the British Film Institute with the presenter Alex Zane, the movie’s director, Christopher McQuarrie, and a handful of his fellow cast members. In New York, he faced off with Jimmy Fallon in a lip-sync battle on The Tonight Show and attended the Monday night premiere in Times Square. And, on Tuesday afternoon, the actor recorded an appearance on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, where he discussed his exercise regimen, the importance of a healthy diet, and how he still has all his own hair at 53.

Stewart, who during his career has won two Peabody Awards for public service and the Orwell Award for “distinguished contribution to honesty and clarity in public language,” represented the most challenging interviewer Cruise has faced on the tour, during a challenging year for the actor. In April, HBO broadcast Alex Gibney’s documentary Going Clear, a film based on the book of the same title by Lawrence Wright exploring the Church of Scientology, of which Cruise is a high-profile member. The movie alleges, among other things, that the actor personally profited from slave labor (church members who were paid 40 cents an hour to outfit the star’s airplane hangar and motorcycle), and that his former girlfriend, the actress Nazanin Boniadi, was punished by the Church by being forced to do menial work after telling a friend about her relationship troubles with Cruise. For Cruise “not to address the allegations of abuse,” Gibney said in January, “seems to me palpably irresponsible.” But in The Daily Show interview, as with all of Cruise’s other appearances, Scientology wasn’t mentioned.

An attack on an American-funded military group epitomizes the Obama Administration’s logistical and strategic failures in the war-torn country.

Last week, the U.S. finally received some good news in Syria:.After months of prevarication, Turkey announced that the American military could launch airstrikes against Islamic State positions in Syria from its base in Incirlik. The development signaled that Turkey, a regional power, had at last agreed to join the fight against ISIS.

The announcement provided a dose of optimism in a conflict that has, in the last four years, killed over 200,000 and displaced millions more. Days later, however, the positive momentum screeched to a halt. Earlier this week, fighters from the al-Nusra Front, an Islamist group aligned with al-Qaeda, reportedly captured the commander of Division 30, a Syrian militia that receives U.S. funding and logistical support, in the countryside north of Aleppo. On Friday, the offensive escalated: Al-Nusra fighters attacked Division 30 headquarters, killing five and capturing others. According to Agence France Presse, the purpose of the attack was to obtain sophisticated weapons provided by the Americans.

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.

What is the Islamic State?

Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers. In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors.

Some say the so-called sharing economy has gotten away from its central premise—sharing.

This past March, in an up-and-coming neighborhood of Portland, Maine, a group of residents rented a warehouse and opened a tool-lending library. The idea was to give locals access to everyday but expensive garage, kitchen, and landscaping tools—such as chainsaws, lawnmowers, wheelbarrows, a giant cider press, and soap molds—to save unnecessary expense as well as clutter in closets and tool sheds.

The residents had been inspired by similar tool-lending libraries across the country—in Columbus, Ohio; in Seattle, Washington; in Portland, Oregon. The ethos made sense to the Mainers. “We all have day jobs working to make a more sustainable world,” says Hazel Onsrud, one of the Maine Tool Library’s founders, who works in renewable energy. “I do not want to buy all of that stuff.”

A controversial treatment shows promise, especially for victims of trauma.

It’s straight out of a cartoon about hypnosis: A black-cloaked charlatan swings a pendulum in front of a patient, who dutifully watches and ping-pongs his eyes in turn. (This might be chased with the intonation, “You are getting sleeeeeepy...”)

Unlike most stereotypical images of mind alteration—“Psychiatric help, 5 cents” anyone?—this one is real. An obscure type of therapy known as EMDR, or Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing, is gaining ground as a potential treatment for people who have experienced severe forms of trauma.

Here’s the idea: The person is told to focus on the troubling image or negative thought while simultaneously moving his or her eyes back and forth. To prompt this, the therapist might move his fingers from side to side, or he might use a tapping or waving of a wand. The patient is told to let her mind go blank and notice whatever sensations might come to mind. These steps are repeated throughout the session.